2018 P Cr (PLP)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 12.12.2014, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge Guiranwala upset an order, as a revisional court, of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gujranwala made on 10.10.2014 with a direction to District. Headquarters Hospital Gujranwala to make arrangements and re-examine the injuries of Muhammad Naveed (petitioner herein), an injured witness of case-FIR No.385/2014, dated 22.6.2014, under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Dhullay, District Gujranwala.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Javed Riaz alias Bhola Butt (respondent No.2), who is an accused of case FIR No.385/2014 (supra) moved an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gujranwala for re-examination of the injuries of the petitioner by the District Standing Medical Board, Gujranwala on 30.9.2014, which was dismissed on 10.10.2014, whereafter, he filed a revision petition, which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 12.12.2014 in the mentioned terms, hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was necessarily an administrative order, which was not amenable to revision; the respondent's application before the learned magistrate was time-barred as he filed it more than three months after issuance of the Medico-legal Report of the injured; the impugned order is patently illegal which may be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vociferously argued that the respondent's application for constitution of a special medical board was not hit by any limitation, in view of policy letter No.SO(H&D)6-/90, dated 8.2.1992, which provided that any order for re-examination of injuries made by the district magistrate concerned as a judicial officer after three weeks of first examination shall supersede earlier instructions issued by Health Department, whereby three weeks time-limit has been clamped; the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was judicial in nature so it was open to revision; having allowed a revision petition of the respondent, learned revisional court has not committed any illegality; the petitioner's so-called firearm injuries, as shown in his medico-legal report, were fabricated and a result of friendly hands, which could only be determined by the District Standing Medical Board, Gujranwala after re-examination thereof.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General Punjab has opposed the contentions of the respondent's learned counsel with the submission that the learned magistrate's order on the subject was administrative in nature, therefore, it was not amenable to revision; the impugned order being unsustainable may be annulled.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that Hafeez Ahmad is the complainant of case FIR No.385/2014 (supra), whose son Muhammad Naveed sustained firearm injuries at the hands of the accused thereof at about 4.00 p.m. on 22.6.2014 and his cousin Bashir Hussain alias Nanna, who was also fired at and seriously wounded by them, succumbed to the injuries being shifted to the hospital. Muhammad Naveed (petitioner) was medically examined on 22.6.2014, courtesy Shabbir Hussain 1375/C at DHQ hospital, Gujranwala by Dr. Suleman Shahid, who found following injuries on his person:-

1. A firearm glancing wound, measuring 2 cm x 2 cm on top of right shoulder.

2. A firearm lacerated wound, measuring 2 cm x 2 cm x going deep on right shoulder, 3 cm below injury No. 1.

3. Multiple entry wounds in an area of 6 cm x 6 cm, each measuring 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm, on front of right side of chest. The probable duration of injuries was mentioned by the medical officer as five to seven hours and kind of weapon was declared firearm. These injuries were kept under observation by the first medical officer and on receipt of surgical opinion, pre-declared these injuries Jurh Ghayr-Jaifah-Hashimah (337-F(v), P.P.C.). More than three months after medical examination of the petitioner/injured, a miscellaneous application for reconstitution of District Standing Medical Board for re-examining his injuries, was moved by respondent assume that such an order, made by a magistrate, would be judicial in nature or could it be considered amenable to revision. The revisional jurisdiction drawn by a sessions court against magisterial order of the noted kind, would be something, in excess of the judicial authority vested in it. Same principle is applicable to the impugned order, hence, unsustainable in the eye of law.

7. There is no need to fall into any further discussion as to the issue of moving afore-noted application by the respondent beyond three weeks time, as the policy letter, later in time (No.SO(H&D)6-/90, dated 8.2.1992), has removed the misconception, if any, in this context. The respondent's trial in the above-said case is still at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence and the medical officer, who medically examined the petitioner for his noted injuries, is still to be examined, as submitted by the respondent's learned counsel. He would have enough opportunity to grill the medical officer and identify the dubiousness, if any, as regards injuries of the petitioner, The impugned order, being bereft of merits, cannot be sustained. Hence, set aside.

8. This petition stands allowed in mentioned terms. JK/M-106/L Petition allowed.